Vaughn

People v. Vaughn

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 2022E073346California13,847 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Testimony of Jane Doe.

Through most of 2018, Jane Doe 2 was 17. In March 2018, she was working as a

All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated. The minor victim was referred to below by this fictitious name. We have not found any trial court order authorizing this. (See § 293.5.) Nevertheless, we do the same, to provide protective nondisclosure. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)

3 prostitute in Oakland. Her pimp used the moniker “DeeTee.”

Around the end of May, DeeTee became physically abusive. Around the same

time, Jane started communicating with Wilkins through Tagged (a dating app) and

Instagram. He indicated that he was a pimp. He used the moniker “Polo” or “Polo

Junky.” In the pimping subculture, “POLO” stands for “pimps only live once.”

On June 1, after DeeTee gave Jane another beating, she contacted Wilkins and met

him at a Jack in the Box in Oakland. This made it official that he was her pimp. Jane

brought along a second prostitute called Molly, whom she had met a few days earlier.

Wilkins took Jane and Molly to a Motel 6 in Oakland. He talked to them both

about working as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.